Thursday, February 3, 2011

20 million Ugandan Parliament

I have read the several articles in the media on the controversial 20 million Shilling payment and the one from parliament’s PRO Robert Kaweesa stating that payment to parliament was not a bribe (which is right because legally speaking there are no bribery ingredients as defined in law) however he states that because the process began in Novemer 2010 then it cannot be s bribe and that because payment was done recently and strictly speaking that’s the problem.



First of all, Kaweesa is paid to do this job irrespective of his conscious and I really pity him because in away he becomes part of our history that’s riddled with people who do what they don’t believe in. That’s why I pity many of my good friends who are in the business of defending the indefensible because they want to keep their jobs. Like the prodigal son they know what is right and theirs in their ‘house but they yearn and munch o the pods left by greedy pigs.



Secondly if he was right (and let us for once assume that those for payments are right), part of the media report suggests that the recipients are not sure of what they are to use the money for. One of the MPS was quoted stating that “How can I return the money if people are poor”? Meaning, that the money is to fight poverty, through the usual means-dishing out money.



Thirdly he states that t was to be used for specific work of MPS monitoring government programs like NAADS, Karamoja water, etc assuming again that that argument is right, why would all MPs get similar monies? I thought the one to monitor more activities for example Water in Karamoja, would get more and MPs from cities or municipalities which are run by NWSW would get less.



Fourthly since the above is to some extent scientific and parliament is full of unsystematic personnel, the rational question is which same person or parliament can allocate funds to a person involved in campaigning, one month before to monitor any thing other than their elections, what about those who lost primaries? Are they still interested in monitoring?...



And fifthly where did the money come from, if it was not from parliament where it from is and which vote? CDF? Was it originally budgeted for? I think there has been a deliberate effort for some individuals to run public\government resources as if they are like banana plantations. And by the way all these funds we are seeing being dished out in campaigns should be declared in accordance with Article 72 of the constitution. Campaign financing has the greatest impact in political governance and corruption and to ignore it is a recipe for disaster.



Lastly what is the accountability mechanism? I was made to understand that this was treated like an income- since when did Government begin treating payments to monitor her activities as incomes (taxable) to individuals? Well some of our institutions are lucky because they have no serious Anti-graft actors that are equally asleep and corrupt and therefore cannot follow up. Those who never accounted for CDF also have been paid and indeed yes we may be fooled but not fools time for the wicked will surely run out- but for now it is like feels eternity!

No comments: